4.8 Article

Impression management attenuates the effect of ability on trust in economic exchange

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2118548119

关键词

trust; impression management; ability; experiments

资金

  1. Eller College Small Grant
  2. National Science Foundation CAREER Award [1943688]
  3. Institute for Research in the Social Sciences (IRiSS) at Stanford University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effects of self-promotion on trust are not universally positive, especially for individuals with high ability. Self-promotion may backfire and decrease the perceived benevolence and integrity of a trustee, leading to a lower level of trust placed in that actor.
Are competent actors still trusted when they promote themselves? The answer to this question could have far-reaching implications for understanding trust production in a variety of economic exchange settings in which ability and impression management play vital roles, from succeeding in one's job to excelling in the sales of goods and services. Much social science research assumes an unconditional positive impact of an actor's ability on the trust placed in that actor: in other words, competence breeds trust. In this report, however, we challenge this assumption. Across a series of experiments, we manipulated both the ability and the self-promotion of a trustee and measured the level of trust received. Employing both online laboratory studies (n = 5,606) and a field experiment (n = 101,520), we find that impression management tactics (i.e., selfpromotion and intimidation) can substantially backfire, at least for those with high ability. An explanation for this effect is encapsuled in attribution theory, which argues that capable actors are held to higher standards in terms of how kind and honest they are expected to be. Consistent with our social attribution account, mediation analyses show that competence combined with self-promotion decreases the trustee's perceived benevolence and integrity and, in turn, the level of trust placed in that actor.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据